If the solar energy zoning bylaw being proposed by the Westport Planning Board is adopted in its present form, many Westport residents will be prevented from installing photovoltaic solar electric systems on their property.

Comment

By PAUL L. GAY

southcoasttoday.com

By PAUL L. GAY

Posted Nov. 6, 2012 at 12:01 AM
Updated Nov 8, 2012 at 11:05 AM

By PAUL L. GAY

Posted Nov. 6, 2012 at 12:01 AM
Updated Nov 8, 2012 at 11:05 AM

» Social News

If the solar energy zoning bylaw being proposed by the Westport Planning Board is adopted in its present form, many Westport residents will be prevented from installing photovoltaic solar electric systems on their property.

The bylaw has two main sections, a Small Scale section and a Large Scale section. The Small Scale provisions (about 20 kw) would affect all homeowners and many small businesses in Westport. In contrast, the state model zoning bylaw considers small-scale solar to be 250 kw and below.

Ground-mount systems are severely penalized compared to roof-mount systems. The proposed bylaw requires that ground-mount systems be located at least 50 feet from residential side-yard lines.

A 2012 study by scientists at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that only about 22 percent of existing roofs are suitable for PV, or photovoltaic, installations. Shading, roof pitch, roof orientation and other constraints are limiting factors. This means that 78 percent of Westport residents desiring to install a PV system would have to use a ground mount. There are many older homes in Westport on very small lots. These lots may simply not have enough space to comply with the proposed bylaw. Even if there were enough space, the available area left after the application of the setback requirement may be shaded or otherwise unsuitable for a solar PV installation. Even a tiny amount of shading makes solar very inefficient. In contrast, if you are in the fortunate minority that happens to own a home with a suitable roof orientation, you would be able to install a PV system on your roof, even if the roof happened to be 10 feet from the lot line. This result is clearly unfair and prejudicial to the majority of Westport residents.

The proposed side yard requirement is unwarranted because it serves no legitimate purpose and it will result in denying large numbers of our residents the right to install a solar system.

The proposed bylaw limits the height of ground-mount systems to no more than 10 feet. However, roof mount systems can be as high as the existing roof, which for new construction is 40 feet in height. Here again, the proposed bylaw favors roof-mount systems over ground mount. To reduce the cost of ground mounts, solar panels are often stacked 4 panels high. Solar panels are about 3.5 feet wide, so ground mounts can be 12-15 feet high, allowing for some ground clearance. The proposed bylaw would prohibit economical design, driving up costs for Westport homeowners. Using a two- or three-panel-high ground mount will require the array to be larger and take up substantially more ground area, thereby creating a greater impact on the environment and reducing land area for other uses.

The effect of the proposed dimensional requirements is first to diminish the available area, then to limit the height, thereby requiring greater dimensional area. Many homeowners would find themselves in a Catch 22 paradox. This bylaw would place a dimensional squeeze on the majority of Westport homeowners wishing to install solar. Residents desiring to decrease their electricity costs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil imports, help reduce rising CO2 levels, and increase distributed power generation should not have these goals thwarted by an overly burdensome bylaw, particularly when the dimensional bylaw provisions serve no justifiable purpose.

In March, the state Department of Energy Resources and Office of Environmental Affairs published a model As-of-Right Zoning Bylaw. The model bylaw restates that existing Massachusetts law largely exempts solar photovoltaic installations from local zoning restrictions. The model bylaw goes on to say that "In view of M.G.L. ch. 40A §3, local zoning provisions specifically allowing for as-of-right construction of smaller solar energy systems — such as those commonly installed on top of or on the lot of a home or business — are unnecessary." The wisdom of these agencies should be heeded. Given the state's interpretation, there is a real question whether these bylaw provisions would even be legally enforceable. Bert Lance, onetime director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, popularized the phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Rather than attempting to impose restrictions that have no discernible benefit but that will certainly have a substantial negative impact on our residents, we should leave well enough alone and delete the small-scale solar energy provision from the proposed bylaw. Additionally, the definition of large-scale solar should be modified so that only systems 250 kw and larger are subject to the bylaw.